i really dont know where to start

[valko]

first of all i dont know where this post should go because i made a quick search trough the forum and didnt find a section for criticism so if this should be moved please just move it but dont erase it

second, sorry if my english is not very good so if someone here speaks spanish it would be great to talk in spanish if the other people dont mind

third i was thinking on communicating with the owner of the page trough e-mail but i dont like e-mail a lot so im talking trough the forums so if you want me to "receive a series of questions that i will be unable to answer" post them in the forums here

now that thats clear i want to say that i found this page trough a wikipedia article on the invisible pink unicorn and i think most of what i saw ( i just checked a little of the many articles of the page) is really wrong

1) in the article General Rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution it says "most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction" i think we all know this is
NOT a proof that evolution is wrong its simply that the changes are really small, i mean to be apreciable changes it takes million of years because nature is not magic, the changes dont occur from one generation to other, the next generation is just a little more adapted, then the next one is a little more until theres a point where the changes become visible, for example if im an animal that lives in a really hot enviroment my son will be a little more resistan to heat and his son a little more, and after many generations (many many) theyre bodies will change to resist even more heat and they will be apreciablly (is that writen right?) different looking than me, but this takes a LOT of time because its NOT MAGIC!!

2) in the article The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning, im really not sure whats he trying to prove, the fact that the universe had a beggining doest mean that god exist it just mean that the universe as we know it had a beggining. and before the big bang many scientists believe the universe still existed but it was extremely compresed, and there are theories that the universe will end up compressing itself again so this article is no proof of god

3) about the article The Incredible Design of the Earth - Just the third rock from an ordinary star?: we think earth is very special but there are other planets with the same qualities as earth but our telescopes are not advanced enough to see them yet just like when we were not advanced enough to understand the composition of stars, we think earth is special because we exist if we dont exist we can think, if we existed in other planet as other types of life-forms and without knowledge of any other life-form in the universe we would till believe were the only possible life-forms (think about it)

4) please dont take the bible to seriously, its just a book i recommend you check this article http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/Why ... 2.html[url]

5) i almost forgot: DONT say your religion is right just because many famous scientists were religious

6) about article Invisible Pink Unicorns, Santa Claus and God: you say god is real and the others arent because god is extradimensional and all that but saying that god exist beyond the universe and dimensions makes less sense than a pink invisible unicorn and if it make sense the Abraxas is real too and he is more powerful (abraxas is a gnostic deity that is beyond god and satan because he combines the infinite goodnes of god with the infinite evil of satan so he is the only actually fair and just deity)

thats all for now, again if you have troubles understanding my english is because im not really good whit it, if someone speaks spanish (or want to discuss this) just add me to your msn list v1_gal@hotmail.com[/url]

[Turgonian]

First of all, your English is excellent, and better than that of some native speakers (your written English anyway).

Now, as an answer to your points.

1) The changes were really small. All right. That's what everyone is saying. It means that for quite some time, there must have been transitional forms as one species was changing into another. Only a few of these transitional forms have been found (about 5), when there should have been thousands of them! I would think that discredits naturalistic evolution!

2) The point is that everything that has a beginning needs a cause. So if the universe had a beginning, it must have had a cause. If you believe in compression-expansion-compressions &c., you are in fact saying that the universe had NO beginning, i.e. that it is eternal, but then you are talking about a belief that is no more verifiable than belief in God.

3) Actually, the chances (talking plain probability calculations here) that there is life on another planet are VERY small. It is only a theory, and it already assumes that the earth is not special.
So what you are saying is, 'Because God probably doesn't exist, it's quite probable there is life on other planets even though we don't know about it.' What we are saying is, 'Because God probably exists, it's not very probable there is life on other planets and that's why we're not going to find it.'
So you are already assuming the nonexistence of God to prove that a God-less evolution is true.

4) We believe it is the inspired word of God. Please check this article in turn. We do not believe the Bible simply on 'faith' (as the word is understood today), but because of strong evidence that the Bible is indeed true.

5) We're not saying that. But we're allowed to say many scientists were religious, aren't we?
Many scientists were atheists too. Or Jews. Or maybe Muslims.
I think it was more of a rebuttal to the statement 'Many scientists were atheists, SO atheism must be true'. That statement is just as false.

6) Why? If pink unicorns exist, they should be seen by someone (and you still have to tell me why I should CARE whether pink unicorns exist -- do they have any influence on what happens to me?). If God exists, He should be outside of Time, since He created Time. It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's simply something we can't fully grasp.
If that makes SENSE, it does not follow that EVERY god is true automatically.
Only an all-good God would be completely just and fair. If Abraxas would exist (which he would not, if God existed), he would also be unjust and unfair, wouldn't he? So you're contradicting yourself...

I hope that answers your questions.

[valko]

ok, here we go

1) not every single creature that dies becomes a fossil, the ones that have been discovered have very small changes, too small to be really significant the other trancitional forms have really apreciable changes take man as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution[url], as you can see in that page there are almost 20 different trantitional forms not just 5 the other ones are less known thats all

2) well the fact that the universe had a cause doesnt mean god is the answer it just means that it had a cause

3) i know that the chances of an inhabitted planet are very lttle but thats with life as we know it, if we were other kind of lifeforms we would never think that there are beings like us because we only know what we have seen

4) im sure jesus existed but im also sure that he was only a man who created a new doctrine based on many others before, but i would like to see evidence of other parts of the bible, and in the article you link it says "What is even more exciting is that scientists, using 14C dating and tree rings, have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the Aegean island of Thera, which recently has been dated to 1628 B.C. (15). This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho, at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord unleashed upon Egypt. " but when the carbon 14 dating is used to prove evolution you say its wrong

5) i said wath i said because in many internet sites ive seen people using that as an argument

6)why you say that if the argument that god is extradimensional is true that doesnt mean that all gods are true? if a god existing outside of spacetime makes sense then why the viking gods that existed in asgard (that was other universe) dont make sense or are not real as your god? and about the fairness, why god punishes a finite lifetime of finite sins to an eternal life of eternal pain? thats what doesnt make sense, finally, abraxas IS fair because if youre good you favor good people and if youre evil you favor evil people but if youre BOTH then you are completely fair because you dont favor anyone you treat both equally and judge them more fairly and justly

keep writing, im having fun with this discussion

[Swamper]

6)why you say that if the argument that god is extradimensional is true that doesnt mean that all gods are true? if a god existing outside of spacetime makes sense then why the viking gods that existed in asgard (that was other universe) dont make sense or are not real as your god? and about the fairness, why god punishes a finite lifetime of finite sins to an eternal life of eternal pain? thats what doesnt make sense, finally, abraxas IS fair because if youre good you favor good people and if youre evil you favor evil people but if youre BOTH then you are completely fair because you dont favor anyone you treat both equally and judge them more fairly and justly

I'm going to try to address a couple of things in this point.

We believe that our God is extradimensional, but other religions believed that their gods existed in nature, as a part of it, which makes them illogical.

Abraxas cannot be fair because if you were completely good and completely evil, your good side would reward good people while your evil side simultaneously punished them, and your evil side would reward evil people while your good side simultaneously punished them. Bipolarism is not a very godlike quality, wouldn't you say?

[Turgonian]

1) I wasn't talking about humans, but about all animals in general. If the changes are really as small as you claim, ALL species would have been stuck in a 'halfway' transitional shape for thousands of years. How logical would it be to claim that only fully formed animals as we know them survived as fossils, with a few exceptions, and that nearly all transitional forms in those millions of years did not make the fossil record?
I'm not a scientist, but people at this website are. See the article Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology.

2) You say the universe had a cause. What cause, if you exclude God?

3) Yeah, yeah, IF life forms existed on other planets they wouldn't believe in us either... And how does that prove that there is life on other planets?

4) Jesus did not 'create a doctrine based on many others before'. Jesus told us to trust in His work rather than in His teachings. In other religions, man can attain salvation or enlightenment all by himself.
Continue searching for evidence... However, the crucifixion and resurrection are the most important things in the Bible. You could look at this article which gives a plausible argumentation that the resurrection really happened...and that, therefore, Jesus was God.
I don't know about this website's stance on carbon dating.

5) Oh, OK.

6) Asgard was another world, not another universe. Vikings didn't have 'universes'. It was on another branch of the great oak Yggdrasil, if I recall correctly. Anyway, those gods were not outside of time.
There is probably no pain in hell...no flames, no torture...however, it IS bad. See here.
Swamper is right. If you are good AND evil, and justice / fairness is good while injustice / unfairness is evil, you must both be just and unjust.
Consider the following dialogue:

Judge: You are sentenced to a lifetime in prison.
Murderer: That's not fair.
Judge: Why not? You killed.
Murderer: You favour good people.
Judge: How's that?
Murderer: You throw only criminals in prison.
Judge: Does that surprise you? It's what our system of justice is based on.
Murderer: You never favour criminals.
Judge: You mean it would be just if I would let criminals go and lock up good people for a change?

Translated to our idea of God and man, it would run like this:

God: You are sentenced to eternity in Hell, which basically consists of being ashamed and unhappy because you are excluded from My presence.
Sinner: That's not fair.
God: Why not? You sinned.
Sinner: You favour good people.
God: How's that?
Sinner: You throw only sinners in Hell.
God: Does that surprise you? It's what My justice demands.
Sinner: You never favour sinners.
God: You mean it would be just if I would let sinners live with Me (which is precisely what they didn't want anyway) and punish good people for a change?

And to top it all off, a third dialogue...

God: You are allowed to spend all eternity with Me.
Redeemed Christian: That's not fair.
God: Why not? Jesus paid the price for your sins.
Christian: You favour bad people.
God: How's that?
Christian: You allow sinners into Heaven.
God: Does that surprise you? It's what Jesus came down for...to make you sinless in My eyes.

[Turgonian]

please dont take the bible to seriously, its just a book i recommend you check this article http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/Why ... 10-02.html

This letter was sent to a JEW, not to a Christian. The Jews had a covenant with God, described in the Old Testament, which was like a treaty between God and His chosen people. It's a kind of contract with three kinds of laws: 1) moral laws, 2) civil laws, 3) ceremonial laws.
When Christ died on the cross, the ceremonial laws were abolished. This covers everything that has to do with sacrifices and ritual purity and such. We may now touch the skin of a dead pig (and play football...) wear garments made of two different materials, have contact with women during their period, &c.
The moral laws (the Ten Commandments) are still in place.
The civil laws are a different matter. The Jews had strict rules on how these laws were to be enforced. For instance, homosexuals and blasphemers were to be stoned by the congregation. These laws give us a good idea of what God abhors, but when Christ's work on the Cross was fulfilled, the penalties that enforced the laws were abolished. So, while homosexuality and blaspheming is still sinful, God has not given us the authority to harm them, unlike the ancient Jews, who had received this authority.

So, for instance:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

...refers to a ceremonial law which was abolished.
And

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

...refers to a civil law: the Saturday Sabbath was abolished. Although Christians should still keep one day of the week holy, it doesn't matter which one. Almost all Christians have Sunday as their holy day.

Finally, there are two things on slavery.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Once again, this refers to the Jews, who lived in a world where 'slavery' was common practice (which was more like servitude, not the more modern stow-'em-in-a-ship-and-work-'em-to-death slavery).
Because the Jews were the chosen people, God made a distinction between them and neighbouring nations. Read this:

-- [The Jews were] allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]

-- The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic).

-- The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29:11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself." (Deut 25:47-48.)

As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.

Quote taken from this long article about slavery in the Bible.
So, as an answer to the burning question of this man...he is NOT allowed to have EITHER a Mexican OR a Canadian, because he lives in a completely other time. God made laws about slavery not because He wanted people to be slaves, but so that the Jews would not be cruel to their slaves.

And the other,

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

No price would be fair. In this day and age, we have a working social security system.
The ancient Jews had no such luck. When a father could not provide for his family, he could sell his daughter (who would be given in marriage anyway -- this was no individualist society where everyone chooses his/her own partner). The choice was between letting the daughter die of starvation or sell her.
Female slaves were not treated harshly, and it is quite understandable that fathers preferred their daughter to be married as a second wife to a wealthy man, instead of seeing her married to another poor man who couldn't well provide for her either.
When a father sold his daughter, he also ensured her future security. When a daughter was sold to a rich family, it was to be expected that the master or his son would marry her and be obliged to provide for her. The girl was to be treated as a FREE WOMAN, not as a slave.

Summarized: when a father sold his daughter, it was because he was poor. In this way, the family would get money to survive and the daughter would get security, so that she could survive too.
If a father wouldn't be able to sell his daughter in this way, he would die along with his daughter. So this 'slavery' wasn't harsh -- it was very merciful! It was a social security system!

[valko]

1) ok, if evolution is false, explain the dinosaurs and the other prehistoric animals in a non-flinstones way

2) i dont know but that doesnt mean that god is the only answer

3) i didnt say that to prove life in other planets, i said it to prove that we are not as special as you think

4) christianism is based on monotheism and monotheism was first introducted by the jews

5) i like we solved that :3, so ill put a new nuber 5: about the article Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population
prayer acts like a placebo its not neccesarly supernatural ( and if prayers help the answer this: if buddhist monks pray for every disease to disseapear then how you know that its their prayers that are helping this people?)

6) i was wrong on asgard, but i have read some gnostic gospels and their deities ARE outside time and space in another plane or dimension or however you want to call it (like ABRAXAS). i dont think youre getting the abraxas idea, he doesnt have a good and and evil side, but both sides are united, completely merged making him NEUTRAL and completely omnipotent and fair, if youre going to say its false because it doesnt make sense to you realize that when i told you god didnt make sense you said "It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's simply something we can't fully grasp"

7) i shouldnt post the "why cant it own a canadian" article i posted it so you could read it and laugh a little so forget about that one

ps do you believe in the string theory? because with that may explain wy god is outside normal dimensions (just remember, like evolution, its just a theory)

ps2 maybe i didnt read well your posts but you didnt answer my question of WHY god condemnes a finite lifetime of finite sins with infinite lifetime of punishment (that doesnt sound fair)

[Turgonian]

1) What do you mean by 'explain'?
I will point out two articles with different anti-Darwinistic viewpoints.
An Old Earth Creationist article on this site: Demise of the "Birds are Dinosaurs" Theory -- not about dinosaurs in general, but about the theory that birds were descended from dinosaurs. I don't know if this site has an article 'explaining' dinosaurs.
A New Earth Creationist article: Dinosaurs and the Bible -- giving a brief account how dinosaurs fit into a Creationist view. This might be what you are looking for, because it's more general.

2) If the universe was created, the creator must have had more power than the universe. Such power is only present in a being we would call 'God'.

3) You're contradicting yourself here. Either there is no life on other planets and we are special, or there is life on other planets and we are not special.
So if you can't prove life on other planets, and we have no reason to believe it exists, we ARE special.

4) Christianity is a monotheistic religion, yes. It is still radically different from Judaism. Jews believe that their works will save them; Christians believe that Christ will save them.

5) There couldn't have been a placebo effect, because:

To evaluate the effects of IP in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed.

'Double-blind' means that half of the patients did not get intercessory prayer, and the other half did. The patients did not know whether someone was praying for them or not, which is done to exclude placebo effects. This scientific method is used to test ANY medicine.

About the Buddhist monks: as far as I'm aware, they haven't been in this double-blind protocol. If they would start praying that every sick person would be healed, would it happen? Do we have any evidence that it would?
Besides...Buddhism is about getting rid of suffering by controlling your passions, not by physical relief...so I doubt whether Buddhist monks would do it in the first place! :D

6) So in Abraxas, justice and injustice, fairness and unfairness are merged so as to become 'neutral'?
In that case, you do not have a god who is both just and unjust, but you DO have a god which is neither just nor unjust...
...which, in my opinion, amounts to the same thing.
A god who is neither just nor unjust, neither good nor evil, neither compassionate nor cruel, neither merciful nor unforgiving, etc., is a god who can't do anything except neutral things, which would prevent him from interfering when he was really needed...

Do you think fairness is a good thing?
If you don't think so, why would you want a fair god?
If you do think so, how would it be possible that Abraxas is fair? The good quality (fairness) must merge with the contrasting evil quality (unfairness).
Then you have a god who is neutral, and possibly omnipotent, but not all-fair.

By now, I have read the article you referred to. It is not meant as proof that God exists. It is only arguing that it is inane to compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns.
But if an all-powerful God exists, there can only be one of Him. All we have to do is determine His qualities. Is He like Abraxas or like the Judeo-Christian God? He can't be both. So if you say 'IF your God exists THEN it would be logical that Abraxas exists too', you're wrong. It's either one or the other.
And IF God created the universe, it's logical that He is outside of it. In any case He must have been outside of it before He created it. (Can you make a box you're already in?) It doesn't violate any laws of logic, so it makes sense, even though we can't form an image of it.

7) (We forget about the article and move to the string theory.) I don't know. I would say that God is outside of all dimensions. I have no problem with the idea that an omnipotent Creator-God can operate on earth without needing ten dimensions. But I won't be dogmatic about it, because it's possible that God chooses to work from higher dimensions. As long as Open View Theism is not endorsed (the view that God doesn't really know what will happen tomorrow, only what might happen), I don't care very much.

8) (About the finite sins/infinite punishment question.) We can question both points.
- Finite sins. One could argue that sins transgress an infinite standard. God is infinitely holy and cannot tolerate the smallest sin. In this view, sin is not a question of 'how much', but of 'either/or'. Either one's sinfulness has been 'transferred' to Jesus Christ, or not.
- Infinite punishment. Is Hell a place of punishment, to start with? See also here. It involves not physical punishment, but shaming. It is being excluded from God's presence, or possibly trying to get away from God. CS Lewis said that 'the doors of Hell will be locked on the inside' -- people in Hell would rather be there than in God's holy presence. Although they will probably find Hell undesirable, they will find Heaven worse -- that would be the real punishment for them!

To use a weak comparison: instead of attending a party where you feel seriously out of place, most people find it preferable to be outside.

I hope this helps...

[Gman]

6) i was wrong on asgard, but i have read some gnostic gospels and their deities ARE outside time and space in another plane or dimension or however you want to call it (like ABRAXAS). i dont think youre getting the abraxas idea, he doesnt have a good and and evil side, but both sides are united, completely merged making him NEUTRAL and completely omnipotent and fair, if youre going to say its false because it doesnt make sense to you realize that when i told you god didnt make sense you said "It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's simply something we can't fully grasp"

Just an fyi... The Judeo-Christian God is love (1 John 4:16)... No other deity can truely make that claim... And if they do, you would have to clearly define what they mean by love. Did abraxas love his people so much that he would die for them? What about the 10 commandments of love... Does abraxas (or any other deity) just sit back and stay neutral or does he try to instruct his people to love? Wouldn't you do the same?

G -

[Turgonian]

A little nuance: God is love, but he's also a lot more than that (like holiness). And 'love' is not 'sentimental love'. You probably knew that, Gman, but one can never be too clear, eh? Good points, by the way.

[Gman]

A little nuance: God is love, but he's also a lot more than that (like holiness). And 'love' is not 'sentimental love'. You probably knew that, Gman, but one can never be too clear, eh? Good points, by the way.

Actually, I believe that love is at the heart of God's character which defines or magnifies his divine power or holiness and gives it its deepest meaning... A lot of people or deities claim to be holy, but it is their love (or their interpretation of love) that defines them or their power... Just to be clear..

So if God's character or holiness doesn't equal love, we've got a problem...

I guess the other problem is what do we mean by love? To me, that is where the 10 commandments stand out... Like honor your father and mother, love your neighbor as yourself, etc..

G -

[Birdie]

Actually, I believe that love is at the heart of God's character which defines or magnifies his divine power or holiness and gives it its deepest meaning... A lot of people or deities claim to be holy, but it is their love (or their interpretation of love) that defines them or their power... Just to be clear..

So if God's character or holiness doesn't equal love, we've got a problem...

I like that definition of God a lot better than the God hates non-Christians and the angry God.
Btw are you a communist?

And also for the whole evolution thing, I really think animals evolved. If all the animals we have now plus all the ones that have gone extinct where like that ever since the beginning, I don't think they would have been able to fit on Noah's boat…

[Gman]

Hi Birdie, I thought you flew away... Glad you are back.

Btw are you a communist?

No but I'm a registered democrat, if that helps any...

And also for the whole evolution thing, I really think animals evolved. If all the animals we have now plus all the ones that have gone extinct where like that ever since the beginning, I don't think they would have been able to fit on Noah's boat…

Actually I don't believe in a global flood as the YEC claims... I think the local flood stands on better ground and has better facts. Therefore less animals were on the ark... Here is a good article on it.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

By the way, I'm going to be doing another article on it soon too...

Take care,

G -

[Birdie]

Hi Birdie, I thought you flew away... Glad you are back.

Btw are you a communist?

No but I'm a registered democrat, if that helps any...

And also for the whole evolution thing, I really think animals evolved. If all the animals we have now plus all the ones that have gone extinct where like that ever since the beginning, I don't think they would have been able to fit on Noah's boat…

Actually I don't believe in a global flood as the YEC claims... I think the local flood stands on better ground and has better facts. Therefore less animals were on the ark... Here is a good article on it.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

By the way, I'm going to be doing another article on it soon too...

Take care,

G -

Been busy because school just started...

I guess local makes more sense, even though then the animals would have to evolve from about 100 different animals… and was just wondering if you were a communist because your sig has a quote from Hegel.

[Gman]

and was just wondering if you were a communist because your sig has a quote from Hegel.

Well, some like to believe he was in the Marxist camp. But he lived from 1770 to 1831, well before Marxism... But even if some his ideas were classified as such, it still doesn't bother me... After all, some say the same about Christ too. That he believed in the equality of the sexes, he despised money-driven and money-hungry motives, he placed more value in humans than riches... etc...

G -